Caremark (Slough and South Bucks)

Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People's experience of using this service and what we found: People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. However, management did not always complete mental capacity assessments and document all best interest decisions. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People were overwhelmingly positive about the care and support received. Comments received included, "I like Caremark's service. Very good and the carers are very helpful", The care has been outstanding, appreciate the flexibility when needed", "Caremark are very helpful, good and caring" and "All the carers are lovely and treat me well. Thank you for all they are doing for me." Staff demonstrated a good understanding of how to deliver personalised care.

People and those who represented them said they felt safe from harm and were given information about what to do if they felt unsafe. Staff had a good understanding and awareness of abuse and had attended the relevant training. Staff were aware of risks to people's well-being and how to manage them. There were enough staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs. Safe recruitment practices were in place to ensure people were cared for by staff with good character. There was safe administration of medicines as the service followed relevant national guidance. People said staff followed good hygiene practices and training records confirmed staff had attended the relevant training.

People and those who represented them felt staff were skilled and experienced to look after them. Staff were appropriately inducted and spoke positively about their training and supervision. People received appropriate support to maintain their nutrition and hydration needs. The service worked in partnership with other health and social care agencies to achieve good health outcomes for people.

People and those who represented them said the care received met their specific needs. Assessments showed planning of care was focussed on people's whole life, their wishes and needs on the grounds of protected equality characteristics. People said they were involved in decisions about their care. The service helped to protect people from the risk of social isolation.

The service was compliant with Accessible Information Standard by making sure the communication needs of people with a disability or sensory loss was flagged; shared and communicated. Regular reviews of care ensured staff were aware of any changes in people's circumstances and systems were in place to deal with any complaints. Discussions in relation to people's preferences for end of life care were not always documented in people's care records. We have made a recommendation about this in the report.

People, those who represented them, and staff felt the service was consistently well-managed. The service had a positive culture that was person-centred, open and inclusive. Staff said they felt respected, valued and supported. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to evaluate accurate information about the quality and safety of the care and support that was provided. The service sought the views of people, those who represented them and staff, to understand where improvements were needed. The service developed good working partnerships to support care provision and joined up care. There was an open culture of learning from mistakes and changes were made to service delivery due to lessons learnt.